What happens to that "right to live" if your stalked and killed by lions on the Serengetti? Where did that "right" go?

That right doesn't have to do with overriding the laws of nature. It's a legal premise. I desire to live. One wants to have a right to their life then. Does one want to argue from the premise that the right comes from the government, or that it comes from their innate desire, natural desire, to live?

I vote for the latter. But, if people so choose they can hold the premise that's it's the government who gives them that right to live. Sounds like a pretty self-defeating premise to me though....

What happens to that "right to live" if your stalked and killed by lions on the Serengetti? Where did that "right" go?

That right doesn't have to do with overriding the laws of nature. It's a legal premise. I desire to live. One wants to have a right to their life then. Does one want to argue from the premise that the right comes from the government, or that it comes from their innate desire, natural desire, to live?

I vote for the latter. But, if people so choose they can hold the premise that's it's the government who gives them that right to live. Sounds like a pretty self-defeating premise to me though....

is this natural right apply to those who starve 4000 an hour at last count

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

What happens to that "right to live" if your stalked and killed by lions on the Serengetti? Where did that "right" go?

That right doesn't have to do with overriding the laws of nature.

That's because rights are man made constructs.

Quote

It's a legal premise.

Yup.

Rights are declared and defined by people, yeah, but not all rights are just arbitrarily made up. People recognized an innate desire to live in most people, and constructed the natural-right around that desire. They didn't just pull the idea out of thin air for no particular reason.

What happens to that "right to live" if your stalked and killed by lions on the Serengetti? Where did that "right" go?

That right doesn't have to do with overriding the laws of nature. It's a legal premise. I desire to live. One wants to have a right to their life then. Does one want to argue from the premise that the right comes from the government, or that it comes from their innate desire, natural desire, to live?

I vote for the latter. But, if people so choose they can hold the premise that's it's the government who gives them that right to live. Sounds like a pretty self-defeating premise to me though....

is this natural right apply to those who starve 4000 an hour at last count

It applies to whoever wants to accept it as their natural-right. Those who want to freely give that right over to the government, argue for their own tyrannical rule.

Interestingly enough, I never claimed that you did. Funny how that works out.

This is just a strawman created so that you can nimbly dodge away from actually addressing what was said in the post that you quoted and, more specifically, the section that you bolded. That your entire position rests on a foundation of nothing more than your own desire to see the world that way. It has no other basis that you can show, rendering it entirely arbitrary. You believe that labelling a right as "natural" somehow makes it harder to take away. However that has no bearing on whether the right actually is "natural" which you have yet to show is even applicable to any human rights that we hold as a society.

Not coincidentally, this is strikingly similiar to what the atheists are saying about rights. The primary difference being that they are admitting to it's arbitrary nature.

As a sidenote, might I point out that you're about as nimble as a five hundred pound amputated gymnast with rapidly failing eyesight. You should likely start really answering people soon.

Also, yeah, the rights are declared by people. But, the point is, certain rights are called natural, or god-given, so that no person, government official, can claim to be the giver of that right, to take that power off them.

This is why your position fails so spectacularly. If the rights are only called "natural" or "god-given" by people then they remain just as arbitrary as rights given by the government or any other group of humans. If your criteria is that people only need call them natural rights, there is nothing stopping people from coming to the decision that those rights are no longer natural and thus altering its status. This "higher authority" is simply a fabrication to give the illusion of authority without actually possessing any.

As I pointed out previously, you are a very sad example of the Dunning-Krueger effect.

Then you should have little difficulty with ceasing your constant avoidance and actually refuting the point. Something which I am still waiting on. I'm sure you'll have something to provide that is absolutely brilliant and suitable earth-shaking.

People recognized an innate desire to live in most people, and constructed the natural-right around that desire. They didn't just pull the idea out of thin air for no particular reason.

Gill......allow me to help you out with this. You have to actually provide justification for the things you say. Or at least provide a logical train of thought that leads to that conclusion. Otherwise you're just making random and ultimately useless claims that serve only to illustrate an inability to engage on an adult intellectual level.

Prove that people recognized these desires and used it to create this right. Also show how this "higher authority" actually exists, as well as why it should be adhered to. Then you might be taken semi-seriously. Also try to make a consistent set of points.

As a sidenote, your above statement serves as a claim that natural rights are an absolute truth. So all I can assume is that you were either being misleading before, are being misleading now, or my earlier theory about your Dunning-Kruegerness is correct.

Logged

"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.Spartan Reply: If.

The natural rights are not arbitrary though, they were based on reason and experience involving what people wanted, when they were formulated. But no, they aren't necessarily some absolute truth, but they are certainly based on what a majority of people would consider true desires.

Prove that people recognized these desires and used it to create this rights? Okay, the Declaration of Independence. Which, is what I'm basically echoing in my posts, this isn't just my original idea.....

I wonder if Jesus would have been so called crucified if the people who crucified him were atheists. Hmmmmm If my memory serves me right they were believers in GOD! They surely were not self proclaimed Atheists...Duh! Let us remember creationists kill other creationists. You sure don't hear of Atheists going around killing other atheists and the reason why is they are all in agreement that GOD is not real. Even the bible actually tells you to stay away from religion. Think about it. It states in Luke 21 many will come saying I am he but, don not go after them. Well gee, I haven't run into a religion that says I am not he. Also if there is only one true GOD why so many religions? It's so nice I don't have to take my pick as far as atheism is concerned. At least we all are in agreement with each other. We don't go around killing each other in atheists name for the true atheist. lolol

The natural rights are not arbitrary though, they were based on reason and experience involving what people wanted, when they were formulated.

Which is what makes them arbitrary. They are based on factors that are entirely subjective.By your own admission, "natural" rights are defined by people based on what they want to be considered "natural". Rights are only "natural" because people decided to call them "natural" and as soon as people decide to call them something else they will stop being "natural". Since the only criteria you have yet presented as to why a right is "natural" is the collective will of the people, then it is indeed entirely arbitrary which rights are natural as they and will change with the peoples whim.

And you still have yet to present a single argument otherwise. Just pointless dodging and reassertions of claims that were ill-thought out and demonstrably wrong the first time around.

If you want to actually make an argument that they aren't arbitrary, feel free. However as it stands every point I've made so far remains unchallenged by you.

Prove that people recognized these desires and used it to create this rights? Okay, the Declaration of Independence. Which, is what I'm basically echoing in my posts, this isn't just my original idea.....

Just saying "Declaration of Independence" is not a justification. It's an indication of mental laziness or, possibly, dishonesty on your part. You have to connect it to a coherent set of thoughts. HOW does the Declaration indicate any of this? How does it support your claims? You know, actually make a case for your position.

While we're on the subject, before you go into supporting your claim about the Declaration, why don't you attend to some of the others points that I raised that you are obviously ignoring.

I have to admit to being curious as to the reason that you seem unable to make a single reasonable defense of, or substantiation, of anything that you've said so far in this whole thread.

Funny how the thread was successfully hijacked away from the "Atheist Atrocities" OP by this "Natural Rights" business, huh? In any case, 18 pages and 500+ posts later it seems Gill's entire argument is merely based on semantics. He doggedly holds on to the "Creator" part of the DOI when it is not the most important part of the sentence. Allow me to edit:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created born equal, that they are endowed by their Creator at birth with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

There, even with all references to a creator removed the phrase is just as meaningful. These rights are Unalienable (not to be taken away) because they are Self-Evident (common sense; obvious). No god required.

It could also be said that opening the statement with "We hold" is essentially the same thing as saying "In our opinion," but I digress...

We think that people should be treated equally and held responsible for their actions. At birth, they should therefore have a clean slate.

Logged

"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

The natural rights are not arbitrary though, they were based on reason and experience involving what people wanted, when they were formulated.

Which is what makes them arbitrary. They are based on factors that are entirely subjective.By your own admission, "natural" rights are defined by people based on what they want to be considered "natural". Rights are only "natural" because people decided to call them "natural" and as soon as people decide to call them something else they will stop being "natural". Since the only criteria you have yet presented as to why a right is "natural" is the collective will of the people, then it is indeed entirely arbitrary which rights are natural as they and will change with the peoples whim.

And you still have yet to present a single argument otherwise. Just pointless dodging and reassertions of claims that were ill-thought out and demonstrably wrong the first time around.

If you want to actually make an argument that they aren't arbitrary, feel free. However as it stands every point I've made so far remains unchallenged by you.

To me, arbitrary, would be like writing a bunch of possible rights down on pieces of paper, throwing them into a hat, then randomly picking them. Calling them arbitrary implies there's no reason behind them, and there was.

And the rights aren't entirely subjective since they were agreed upon by multiple observers.

Prove that people recognized these desires and used it to create this rights? Okay, the Declaration of Independence. Which, is what I'm basically echoing in my posts, this isn't just my original idea.....

Quote from: Alzael

Just saying "Declaration of Independence" is not a justification. It's an indication of mental laziness or, possibly, dishonesty on your part. You have to connect it to a coherent set of thoughts. HOW does the Declaration indicate any of this? How does it support your claims? You know, actually make a case for your position.

How? The Declaration lists natural rights. They didn't list these things arbitrarily. Such rights were declared to take power off the government and give leverage to the citizens. A pretty common interpretation I'm giving here, don't see how it's very debatable.

Funny how the thread was successfully hijacked away from the "Atheist Atrocities" OP by this "Natural Rights" business, huh? In any case, 18 pages and 500+ posts later it seems Gill's entire argument is merely based on semantics. He doggedly holds on to the "Creator" part of the DOI when it is not the most important part of the sentence. Allow me to edit:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created born equal, that they are endowed by their Creator at birth with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

There, even with all references to a creator removed the phrase is just as meaningful. These rights are Unalienable (not to be taken away) because they are Self-Evident (common sense; obvious). No god required.

It could also be said that opening the statement with "We hold" is essentially the same thing as saying "In our opinion," but I digress...

I think your re-writing would still beg the question, who or what, endowed anyone?

Majority rule, that's how. The majority of people agree that they wish to live, not be murdered, therefore they agree on a natural-right to live.

(Bold by me.)

What we have chosen to collectively call 'Human Rights' are a fictional construct. Outside of these fictional constructs, that we call laws, civilization and society you have none of these rights. They are not natural in anyway, nor are they respected by nature.

The government that you hold so dear is held together by a common belief and desire. The problem as demonstrated is that that belief and desire is subject to change over time.

Logged

Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

To me, arbitrary, would be like writing a bunch of possible rights down on pieces of paper, throwing them into a hat, then randomly picking them. Calling them arbitrary implies there's no reason behind them, and there was.

Note the bold. Still an assertion on your part. Not an actual intelligent argument. You're still only justifying what you say with nothing else but because you say so. It does not matter what you think, it matters what you can support.

The second part is very slightly better but still does not constitute anything intelligent. Arbitrary does not necessarily, by definition, mean there was no reason behind them. It means there was no supported reason behind them, and as I've pointed out repeatedly you have given no reason for why these were called "natural" rights other than that people wanted to call them such.

Don't say there was a reason, give the reason. And before you start retreading your old, pointless assertions, it has to be a reason that indicates they had a reason for making them "natural" rights other than because they wanted to.

And the rights aren't entirely subjective since they were agreed upon by multiple observers.

This is seriously almost too stupid to actually comment on, Gill. It does make a good signature though. Don't you think that before you use the word subjective, you should actually know what it means?

To respond, yes, it is still entirely subjective. See the bold, that statement alone makes it subjective. If it has to be "agreed upon" then it is subjective. Objective means that it is what it is regardless of what people think.

They didn't list these things arbitrarily. Such rights were declared to take power off the government and give leverage to the citizens. A pretty common interpretation I'm giving here, don't see how it's very debatable.

Does not address the point. Which was that you were to demonstrate that people recognized an innate desire to live and constructed the "natural" right around that idea. To repeat again, simply saying "The Declaration of Rights" is not an argument that offers any explanation or evidence or support for your conclusion. You have to actually think and make a real response that displays a coherent trail of logic. Not a series of assertions.

As it stands all this does is demonstrate laziness, incompetence, and a lack of understanding.

I'm curious, why would you post in a discussion forum that has as its rules the need to backup and support your arguments, when you are clearly unwilling to even make the slightest attempt to do so?

Logged

"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.Spartan Reply: If.

Majority rule, that's how. The majority of people agree that they wish to live, not be murdered, therefore they agree on a natural-right to live.

Which makes it entirely subjective and arbitrary. Which is what everybody has been telling you. You're the one who started trying to claim an allegiance to a "higher authority" and then used that as an excuse to justify your bigoted position that you would not vote for an atheist.

A "higher authority" which I note that you still fail to justify in anyway, shape, or form.

Logged

"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.Spartan Reply: If.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created born equal, that they are endowed by their Creator at birth with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

They forgot to add "unless you are a slave or female. In which case these inalienable rights are void. They're only for white males".

Logged

"Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions fall away, atheism is what is left behind".

"We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created born equal, that they are endowed by their Creator at birth with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

They forgot to add "unless you are a slave or female. In which case these inalienable rights are void. They're only for white males".

You also forgot a few things: "unless you are a slave, female, of foreign descent[1] or a non-christian".

We hold these truths to be self-evident that all white rich men are created born equal, that they are endowed by their white, male, rich, Creator at birth with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Seems inalienable rights aren't quite as inalienable as Gill would have us believe.

Logged

"Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions fall away, atheism is what is left behind".

What happens to that "right to live" if your stalked and killed by lions on the Serengetti? Where did that "right" go?

That right doesn't have to do with overriding the laws of nature.

That's because rights are man made constructs.

Quote

It's a legal premise.

Yup.

Rights are declared and defined by people, yeah, but not all rights are just arbitrarily made up. People recognized an innate desire to live in most people, and constructed the natural-right around that desire. They didn't just pull the idea out of thin air for no particular reason.

Does this apply to the slaves owned by Christians and the slave owners who came before them?

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

What happens to that "right to live" if your stalked and killed by lions on the Serengetti? Where did that "right" go?

That right doesn't have to do with overriding the laws of nature. It's a legal premise. I desire to live. One wants to have a right to their life then. Does one want to argue from the premise that the right comes from the government, or that it comes from their innate desire, natural desire, to live?

I vote for the latter. But, if people so choose they can hold the premise that's it's the government who gives them that right to live. Sounds like a pretty self-defeating premise to me though....

is this natural right apply to those who starve 4000 an hour at last count

It applies to whoever wants to accept it as their natural-right. Those who want to freely give that right over to the government, argue for their own tyrannical rule.

So because the Government has not built malls for them to shop or work at they are tyrannical Govenrments?

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)